On Caroline

January 9, 2009

caroline

 

It’s not easy to jump into the public leadership game. It’s arguably even harder for women and other “diverse” leaders, or for anyone carrying the burden of a spotlight they didn’t earn. Most political children go quietly into the political night, despite our fixation on the high-profile exceptions. The easy choice for Caroline Kennedy was to continue to live the relatively safe and private life she had created for herself.

But instead she’s going for it. She’s ready to risk the “dust and sweat and blood” that Teddy Roosevelt so admired, even as the wealth and prestige of his own family kept his political bloodletting to a minimum. She’s ready to rumble, to demand attention in a macho culture of ruthless self-promotion — and has staked out a platform that includes marriage equality, to boot.

I should be cheering her on, I tell myself, and yet I’m overwhelmed by ambivalence. Maureen Dowd challenged us to own the double standard this week (we could stomach W, but not a W who is also “smart, cultivated, serious”?) and lose the fantasy that the U.S. Congress has ever been a meritocracy. Her points are fair, and my ambivalence grows.

Part of it is this moment, certainly, where competence should be king. We may have pulled off the American experiment to date without tapping the best public servants in the land, but the complexity of our current challenges suggests it’s time for a new HR strategy. We can’t afford to give anyone extra points for celebrity (paging Dr. Gupta). Not anymore. We need public leaders with the capacity to lead.

But there’s something else going on for me. Aspiring politicians climb into Teddy’s dusty arena every day, bringing enormous differences in fair and “unfair” advantages. I’m at peace with it. We have revealed little interest as a society in trying to even this playing field. Public financing of elections, for example, is unlikely to ever happen, even though it means that Steve Forbes gets to run for any office he chooses. If you want to play this game and weren’t born into a family with enough political and financial capital, you have to figure it out. No one really holds it against John McCain that he married into the chance to become a Congressman. It’s certainly the path of least resistance.

The difference is this:  whatever advantages these competitors brought to the game, at some point they had to play it. They had to find a way to win hearts and minds and votes — and, yes, sometimes glad-hand, backstab and logroll along the way. But Caroline is not asking to play. She’s asking to win without playing. And it means that other dust-covered and bloodied public servants will not have this chance to use their substantial political skill for greater impact. I understand why it makes sense for Caroline and why it may make sense for the state of New York, but I’m finding it hard to get the pom-poms out.

 


Seeking Exceptional Service Providers

January 8, 2009

We are looking for examples of exceptional service providers, preferably those with innovative models and/or those that are unheralded in the press. If you have a suggestion, please post as a comment or email me directly ffrei@hbs.edu. Thank you!


Self-Service Revolution or the Worst Meal I’ve Ever Bought?

January 8, 2009

I fought off anxious flashbacks yesterday to the least satisfying meal I’ve ever exchanged for hard currency. These memories were not a welcome intrusion. We live in complex times. But anxiety is a blunt instrument – it doesn’t distinguish between wondering whether the coffee maker is still on and fear of unemployment.

A trip to Harvard Square sent me back to my experience at a restaurant called “Fire and Ice,” an “improvisational grill” that lets customers design their own dishes, wait on themselves promptly, maintain control over the pace and substance of their meals. These are tasks, of course, that most other restaurants pay the professionals to do.

My own improvisational ride involved roaming around a table of possible ingredients as I questioned my femininity (the other women seemed confident with cabbage) and tried to get the few employees I could find to smile at my discomfort. To their credit, they didn’t bite. And one of them transformed my sad mix of vegetables and raw chicken into a warm, Salmonella-free meal. Still, I sulked as I ate the mediocre dinner I’d helped to create, confused that everyone around me seemed energized and satisfied. Couldn’t I cook myself bad food in the comfort and privacy of my own home? What was I paying for? Even yesterday, when the competition for discretionary income is as fierce as its been in my lifetime, the place was jumping.  Frances, I know you have a thing for self-service, but I think the right service decision in this case would have been to save me from myself.


Self-Service Revolution: Response

January 8, 2009

Self-service is very tricky to get right.  My rule of thumb is that self-service excellence needs to be designed such that customers prefer the self-service to a readily available full service alternative. A great example is airline check-in kiosks. When these kiosks first appeared, passengers felt compelled to use them only because carriers had allowed the lines in front of staffed counters to become ridiculous.  Now many frequent fliers prefer the kiosks. They’re fast, easy-to-use and they provide more control over the service experience, primarily through the seat-selection chart.  This self-service solution is now preferred to a readily available full-service alternative. As a counter example, consider the self-checkout options at many supermarkets – customers have revealed little interest in managing the complexity and effort of scanning and bagging their own groceries.

Fire and Ice clearly failed this “better than the full-service alternative” test for you.  There could be two explanations. Either its service design is inferior or its service is not designed for you. Given the thriving business you referenced — and indeed I see its success each time I walk past it – my inclination is to say that you’re not part of its target market. That it resists making changes for customers like you who fall outside this market is to be applauded, in my mind. Bristol Lounge at the Four Seasons?


Unsolicited Advice for Rick Warren

January 2, 2009

Obama and Warren

  1. Your generosity of spirit betrays your divisive posturing — be who you are.
  2. We all have small and large versions of ourselves. Rise to the size of your growing platform.
  3. Eat right and exercise. You can be a righteous force in the world if you stick around for a while.
  4. Love your neighbor as yourself.
  5. I am a gay woman, with a wife and child to protect from the politics of fear you used to undermine my family’s citizenship and dignity — and even I respond to your core decency. There’s something there.
  6. Make my son proud to be part of your America on January 20th.
  7. Believe the hype — the world is hanging on your words right now. We will move on, but you have our attention for the moment. Honor it.
  8. Do not bear false witness. Unless you really can’t distinguish between gay marriage and pedophilia, this one may be the most helpful.
  9. Gay people don’t eat donuts. Consider building bridges with scones next time, maybe a nice fruit plate, cocktails.
  10. Ask yourself what would Jesus do.


The Demise of Airline Service

January 2, 2009

In her NYT OpEd, Ann Hood described the declining level of service experienced in-flight. This likely resonates with everyone who has flown consistently over the last ten years. It is also emblematic of a larger decline in service as documented by Business Week, WSJ (August 2006 special section) and others.  In Hood’s column there was an undercurrent of employee apathy as part of the explanation for declining service. In my experience, systematically poor service is rarely if ever the fault of employees.  Service models are designed to set employees up to either succeed or fail. Airlines today are clearly choosing the latter. In fact, it is good airline service that is surprising these days, precisely because airlines are relying on the heroic efforts of employees to compete. This is bad service by design.  To fix it, airlines need to go back to the drawing board and redesign their basic business model.


Improvement at Toyota

January 1, 2009

An article on Toyota recently caught my attention. The article discussed how even non-US auto manufactures were cutting back production in the US, and the notable part to me was not the decrease in consumer demand but what Toyota was doing with its newly idle workforce. An accompanying picture showed a makeshift training room set up inside an assembly plant. The article described the training topics, ranging from how to handle tools safely to how to get along better with colleagues of varying backgrounds. Toyota is well known for many management practices – the humility with which it reacts to opportunity for improvement is my favorite. Not only does the company try to surface problems wherever it can (through its “andon cord” on the assembly line), but it also understands that idle time today can be leveraged for improvement tomorrow.  A lesson for all organizations, not just its US counterparts.

And then there’s the topics of its training session. Handling tools safely is unsurprising, but I was struck by working more effectively in an increasingly diverse environment.  It’s another sign of the humility inherent in the organization.  It is designed to systematically understand the obstacles to improvement and to as systemically address them in order to unlock future performance.


Improvement at Toyota: Response

January 1, 2009

I was encouraged that managing workforce diversity found itself sandwiched on a list of training topics, somewhere between improved ergonomics and quality control. It was refreshing to see a company casually dignify the challenge as an operational reality and driver of future performance, not a historic wrong that must be righted while also making fuel-efficient cars. As some of your colleagues at HBS have argued gracefully, including Robin Ely and David Thomas, separating diversity from the central challenge of running a business can be counterproductive.

In my own experience, when a diverse, integrated workforce is treated as a company’s social responsibility, at best, it makes people feel good.  At worst, it fosters resentment and insecurity. But when diversity is treated as a competitive advantage, it becomes just that — now more than ever, as the markets for customers and talent become increasingly global. Toyota’s signaling was clear: diversity is as important and unemotional as reducing dashboard defects.



Decision to Lead

January 1, 2009

Decision to Lead is a conversation about expanding the practice of leadership. Our starting point is that the responsibility to lead is not reserved for the privileged few at the top of hierarchies, nor should it be. Leadership is a highly democratic — if relatively rare — phenomenon. It’s a choice anyone can make to step up and have a significant impact on the people they choose to serve.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.